No Equity in Illegality: Bombay High Court Cancels Ineligible ANM/GNM Admissions, Orders Refunds, Rs.1 Lakh Compensation, and Five-Year Compliance Audit

Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.

Date: 9 October 2025 (Reserved on 26 September 2025)

Lead Matter: Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education & Directorate of Medical Education and Research v. Nandini Prakash Ingawale and connected petitions

Introduction

This consolidated judgment addresses a recurring and systemic issue: private nursing colleges admitting ineligible students to Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) courses. Twenty-two petitioners across multiple writ petitions challenged the cancellation of their first-year, first-semester admissions by the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education (the State Board) for the academic year 2024–25.

The petitioners had completed Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) from the vocational stream but, crucially, their vocational subjects were not in the “Health Care Science” cluster mandated for GNM admissions. After ad-interim relief allowed them to sit the first-semester examinations, the Court finally examined whether such illegal admissions could be condoned on grounds of parity (because similarly ineligible second/third-year students had been allowed to continue at some colleges), and what remedial and regulatory consequences should follow.

The respondents included the State of Maharashtra (Department of Medical Education and Drugs), the State Board, the concerned nursing colleges, and the INC. The case raises three core questions: whether courts should overlook illegal admissions; whether errors by regulators can legitimate such admissions; and whether early-stage cancellations are to be treated differently from post-completion scrutiny.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed all writ petitions and upheld the cancellation of admissions of the 22 petitioners as illegal. The Court held that:

The petitioners were academically ineligible for GNM/ANM admissions because their HSC vocational subjects did not fall within the prescribed “Health Care Science” subjects.
Courts cannot perpetuate or equalize illegality merely because similarly ineligible students in higher years are continuing.
Since the illegalities were detected at the threshold (first semester), no equities arose in favor of the petitioners.

The Court, however, issued robust corrective orders:

Admissions of all petitioners stand cancelled.
Results of the first-semester examinations (taken under ad-interim orders) shall not be declared for 45 days; answer scripts to be preserved physically for 45 days and thereafter destroyed, with scanned copies retained for the statutory period.
A five-year retrospective audit of admissions in the concerned institutions must be conducted; where students are in advanced stages (e.g., third year), their admissions are to be protected, but strict action must be taken against the management and any erring officials, in line with Areeb Hasan Ansari v State of Maharashtra.
Colleges must refund the entire first-year fees to each petitioner within 45 days.
Colleges must pay Rs. 1,00,000 to each petitioner as damages for the loss of the academic year, within 45 days.

In short, the Court refused to regularize illegal admissions but simultaneously protected students through restitutionary and compensatory measures, while mandating systemic regulatory action.

Analysis

Factual Matrix and Regulatory Framework

Admissions were made during the AY 2024–25 cycle, concluding by 31 October 2024. The State Board’s guidelines of 18 June 2024, applicable for that academic year, clearly required:

10+2 with English and minimum 40% marks; and
10+2 with English having 40% marks in the vocational stream “Health Care Science” (including Medical Laboratory Technician, Radiology Technician, Child Health Care Services, Old Age Health Care Services, Ophthalmic Technicians) from a recognized board.

The INC issued guidance on 24 February 2025 identifying vocational subjects that could be considered for ANM/GNM, including Yoga Anatomy and Physiology; Ophthalmic Techniques; Medical Laboratory Technology; Auxiliary Nursing & Midwifery (for GNM); and X-Ray Technician. The petitioners’ vocational subjects, however, included streams like Accounting & Office Management, Computer Techniques, Crop Science, Animal Husbandry & Dairy, Building Maintenance, Electrical Technology, Automobile Technology, Marketing & Retail Management, and Creche & Pre-school Management—none of which fell into the specified health-care cluster.

The State Board’s verification drives (Dec 2024–Mar 2025) led to cancellation of 90 admissions; 68 students accepted the decision and exited; the remaining 22 petitioners approached the Court, obtaining ad-interim permission to write the first-semester exam, subject to results being withheld and no equities accruing.

Issues Framed by the Court

Should the High Court turn a blind eye to illegal admissions?
Even if a regulator (such as INC) erred in any recommendations or oversight, can the Court condone illegal admissions that can be “nipped in the bud” at the first semester?
Is early-stage cancellation (in first semester) to be treated differently from situations where illegality is discovered after completion of the course?

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Tinku v State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292):

The Supreme Court underscored that Article 14’s equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to compel the State to perpetuate illegality or irregularity.
Courts must not direct repetition of illegal orders in the name of parity; “negative equality” is impermissible.
This principle directly answered the petitioners’ claim that, because ineligible students in senior years were allowed to continue, the Court should extend similar indulgence. The High Court firmly rejected that plea.

Areeb Hasan Ansari v State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, Aurangabad Bench, 13 April 2023):

In that case, students admitted to medical/para-medical degree courses lacked caste/tribe validity certificates at admission but were otherwise academically eligible; their admissions were regularized upon later submission of validity, while costs were imposed on institutions (Rs. 50,000 per student) for regulatory violations.
The High Court distinguished the present batch: here, the defect is substantive academic ineligibility—not a curable documentary lapse—so regularization was not permissible.
Nonetheless, Areeb Hasan informed the remedial direction to impose costs and institutional accountability while protecting students already in advanced stages.

National Medical Commission v Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College (SC, 10 Feb 2023):

The Supreme Court levied exemplary costs (Rs. 2.5 crores) on an errant management and barred passing the burden onto students.
While not directly applied on facts here, the precedent influenced the High Court’s strong remedial and deterrent posture—compelling refunds, awarding compensation to affected students, and directing institutional audits without victimizing students.

Legal Reasoning

1) Statutory control and binding eligibility norms: The Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013 empowers the Board (Section 24) to regulate standards, including eligibility and conditions of admission. The 18 June 2024 guidelines prescribed the health-care-specific vocational requirement. Colleges were bound to adhere; admitting students from non-health-care vocational streams violated the governing framework.

2) Evidence of ineligibility: The Court meticulously collated each petitioner’s HSC subjects, demonstrating that none satisfied the “Health Care Science” criterion. The consistency and specificity of this analysis removed any factual ambiguity: these were illegal—not merely irregular—admissions.

3) No parity with illegality; early-stage intervention: Invoking Tinku, the Court held that continuing illegality for some cannot justify perpetuating illegality for others. Critically, because these cases arose at the first semester, the Court emphasized the need to “nip in the bud” such admissions to protect integrity of the system and the rights of eligible aspirants who might otherwise be displaced.

4) Regulatory interplay (INC guidance and State Board enforcement): The INC’s 24 February 2025 communication offered a subject-level matrix of acceptable vocational streams. The State Board’s verification, conducted soon after admissions closed, aligned with the INC’s guidance and the Board’s own guidelines. Even if any regulator had erred earlier, the Court would not convert that into a right to continue under Article 14.

5) Equities and public interest in health-care education: The Court underlined the critical nature of ANM/GNM training—especially midwifery—and the public safety implications of diluting entry standards in health-care education. Protecting systemic quality and the legitimate expectations of eligible candidates outweighed the petitioners’ plea for indulgence.

6) Calibrated remedies: While refusing to regularize illegal admissions, the Court balanced fairness by: (a) protecting seniors in advanced years (to avoid disproportionate prejudice to those who, for no fault of theirs, are at the threshold of completion), and (b) imposing financial consequences on the colleges—full fee refunds plus Rs. 1 lakh compensation—to make students whole and deter future violations.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Hardening of the “no equity in illegality” rule in admissions: The judgment fortifies the position that High Courts will not regularize illegal admissions on grounds of parity. Negative equality is emphatically rejected.
Management liability to students: A clear precedent emerges for compensatory relief in favor of students when illegal admissions are cancelled at the threshold. Refund plus damages (Rs. 1 lakh) is notable as a student-centric remedy, even while petitions are dismissed.
Systemic enforcement: The five-year retrospective audit direction—paired with protection for advanced-year students—sets out a regulatory playbook: identify, correct early-stage illegality; audit and sanction management; avoid collateral damage to near-complete cohorts.
Clarity on vocational eligibility: Applicants from HSC vocational streams must align with defined health-care subjects (e.g., MLT, Radiology, Ophthalmic, ANM, X-Ray Technician). Non-health vocational strands (accounting, automobile, building maintenance, marketing, etc.) do not qualify for GNM/ANM admissions.
Compliance culture in nursing education: Colleges are on notice: admission controls must be robust, document verification timely, and academic eligibility non-negotiable. The costs of non-compliance will be borne by institutions—not students.
Litigation strategy: Ad-interim permission to take exams will not create equities. Students and institutions should not rely on interim orders as a pathway to regularization where eligibility is substantively lacking.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Illegal vs. Irregular Admission: Illegal admissions violate mandatory eligibility criteria (e.g., wrong vocational stream). Irregular admissions typically involve procedural lapses (e.g., a missing document that can be cured). Courts are far more likely to condone irregularities than illegality.
Negative Equality (Article 14): The idea that one illegal benefit or mistake for some creates a right for others is rejected. Equality protects lawful claims—not replication of illegality.
Ad-interim Orders: Temporary relief allowing students to write exams does not guarantee final relief. Courts often direct that results be withheld, and no equities will be claimed if the main petition fails.
“Nip in the Bud” Approach: If illegal admissions are detected early (first semester), courts are inclined to cancel them to protect standards and eligible candidates. Tolerance may increase only for students at the very end of their academic program, and even then, the burden falls on institutions through penalties.
Regulatory Scheme: The INC sets national standards; the State Board (under the 2013 Act) prescribes and enforces eligibility and admissions in Maharashtra. Colleges must comply with both.
Midwifery as Integral Competence: GNM training includes midwifery—assisting childbirth. The Court emphasized that entry standards are crucial for patient safety and public health.

Key Directions in This Judgment

All petitioners’ admissions are cancelled.
Results withheld for 45 days; physical answer sheets kept for 45 days then destroyed; scanned copies preserved as per law.
Five-year retrospective audit of admissions in the concerned colleges; protect advanced-year students, but take strict action against management and any erring officials.
Full refund of fees to each petitioner within 45 days.
Rs. 1,00,000 compensation to each petitioner within 45 days for loss of the academic year.

Practical Takeaways

For Students: If applying via HSC vocational stream for GNM/ANM, ensure your vocational subjects are specifically within the health-care cluster. Do not rely on interim court orders to cure a substantive ineligibility.
For Colleges: Institute rigorous eligibility screening. Maintain documentation. Do not admit to fill seats—penalties, refunds, and compensation may be imposed, and regulatory audits may follow.
For Regulators: Continue early and targeted verifications post-admission cycles. Where illegality is detected, act swiftly; protect final-year cohorts to avoid disproportionate harm, while ensuring institutional accountability.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision sends a clear signal: academic eligibility is a hard gate for entry into health-care education, not an administrative nicety. The Court refused to extend parity based on other illegal or overlooked admissions and anchored its reasoning in the Supreme Court’s articulation of Article 14 as a positive equality principle that does not support perpetuation of illegality.

Yet, the judgment is not merely prohibitory—it is remedial and systemic. By directing full refunds, awarding Rs. 1 lakh in compensation to each student, mandating a five-year audit, and protecting advanced-year students, the Court ties institutional accountability to student welfare and system integrity. It articulates a durable framework for handling illegal admissions in professional education: cancel early-stage illegality; compensate those harmed; audit and sanction management; and avoid disproportionate prejudice to cohorts at the threshold of completion.

As a precedent, it is likely to shape admissions governance across nursing and allied health education in Maharashtra, and it offers a persuasive model for other jurisdictions confronting similar challenges.